VAN DAM MURDER VERDICT [VERDICT IN: GUILTY!]

ABC radio

[wallcrawlr]

I just heard this at noon.

[bvw]

Evidently your own company should come bearing great tubs of brass polish for all the trophies of former (most esteemed, greatly praised, prestiguous) glories you would have us shine. And be ready to take to the ouija board with you in invoking the spirits of the dead.

[ContemptofCourt]

TO a degree, it does. Reading the transcripts you can see what the defense strategy was, how they were trying to make their case. Then, being an "evil trial lawyer", knowing that I have been in tough spots making tough arguments, it can be deduced as to what they are working with.

In the end, it is the jury's decision. And you have to trust the system to work. However, one of the defining characteristics of FR is the intense distrust of the system. Thus, any argument you or I may make will fall on deaf ears.

Fact is, evidence is excluded for a reason. If the Defense had legal authority to put evidence in, then they would have presented it to the court. If they did so, it was rejected. Get over it.

[FreeTheHostages]

Evidently your own company should come bearing great tubs of brass polish for all the trophies of former (most esteemed, greatly praised, prestiguous) glories you would have us shine.

All glory is to God. All that we do that is good is by His mercy. You asked me about my academic credentials and I responded. I then said I thought they weren't relevant here. I haven't pulled them out to say that's why I think the jury is correct. What counts is common sense. And the Westerfield -- excuse me the Van Dam -- jury had common sense.

But you don't need telepathic powers with the dead to know how Barbara Olson would have voted on this jury. Perhaps it should shame some people to reflect on this point. I guess I bother with such blather because it's important that you educate yourself on the virtues of common sense. Lest some day you sit on a jury and destroy the life of some victim's family in order to demonstrate your alleged brilliance as an amateur detective. Common sense, my dear man. Not academic awards. Common sense.

[NautiNurse]

there was A spot of blood in the motor home, A hair and A fingerprint.

You are absolutely correct! Doesn't it bother you just a teensy bit that there were NO, Zero, Nada of Westerfield's own fingerprints in his RV?

Take some time and smell the bleach!

[FreeTheHostages]

Well put. I'm not sure if you meant to list me as addressee because I'm not sure I quibbled on any evidentiary rulings. But in any event, the post is highly logical.

[FreeTheHostages]

Doesn't it bother you just a teensy bit that there were NO, Zero, Nada of Westerfield's own fingerprints in his RV?

LOL -- it doesn't bother me that Westerfield couldn't manage to get rid of Danielle's prints while leaving his own. Not even the FBI forensic lab could pull that off. To wipe something clean of prints, you have to get rid of all of them.

Ah, but why assume he was trying to cover something up just because he was taking a blood-stained jacket to the cleaners. Silly me, what was I thinking.

[Dante3]

There was the blood evidence as well as fingerprints and fibers. The bug evidence is part art, part science and is not as solid as the DNA. As to Westerfield's character, the fact that he had the child porn shows that he is not a normal person. And he had an incredible amount of other porn also!

As to those defending Westerfield, IMHO at least a few of them share his fantasy life. Many posting here are not conservatives, but groups with their own agenda. I recall on one threat about strippers ("exotic dangers"), a number of posters went ballistic defending this "profession." Another time an honorable Vietnam Vet was attacked and ridiculed because he was concerned about the drug problem.

[FreeTheHostages]

I worry just a little about your comment. I wouldn't say the people here defending him can relate to the crime. I would say a small minority may have one little problem: you can search this thread and find a few posts asking what's wrong with pornography on your computer etc. etc., doing everything they can to minimize the child-pornography aspect of it. That I do find troubling.

Christ's sword divides. The libertarians and the conservative Christians here aren't going to see eye-to-eye on pornography. But I would hope on the subject of child pornography, FR would be a place where that's not minimized or excused. I doubt that means that people here who say Westerfield's innocent on that charge too consume it. But I worry that they're part of the problem in the sense of not understanding the depravity and seriousness of this crime. I can't even understand the instinct to try to minimize what was on his computer. I don't get it. It makes me think, as I've said too often, some of these people don't live on Planet Earth.

[Lurking Libertarian]

The libertarians and the conservative Christians here aren't going to see eye-to-eye on pornography. But I would hope on the subject of child pornography, FR would be a place where that's not minimized or excused.

This small-l libertarian couldn't agree with you more.

[bvw]

This has been a mighty tempest and disconcerting that Westerfield's best friends in setting to the truth were the bugs and worms that chew up the flesh of the dead. The Jury was bent beyond ability to draw forth a decent verdict for all the ferocity against Westerfield. In Trenton, we had less ferocity over "Squirt Boy" who heiniously and coldly raped and most viciously murdered a young woman. The evidence against "Squirt Boy" was a hundred times more, and there was a *female* accomplice who testified to the rape and murder. Yet in Trenton, they changed this vicious murderer's trial venue to avoid for the sake of Justice, the poisoning of the Jury pool. Not in SD. They wanted the Jury poisoned -- "broccoli heads" -- indeeed. Served better the bloodthirsty Mob than Justice, it did.

You continue it -- "child porn" -- well then bring forth one expert in the field who says behaviours such as we have all observed and heard testimony to about Westerfield's are near causes to violent murder. He had no prior pattern! The porn is only one part, and what he had of it wasn't much.

In cases that I've heard of in the paper, books and broadcast documentaries there is alwsys -- as I recollect -- a more strong pattern. Gacy! He had his collections, his stashes of momentos. None such as to Westerfield.

Do not continue to confuse the shouts of bloody Mob with "common sense".

[Rheo]

Doesn't it bother you just a teensy bit that there were NO, Zero, Nada of Westerfield's own fingerprints in his RV?

There were also none of Danielle's prints in her own room..but there was the unidentified one on the desk next to her bed, in addition to the unidentified DNA on her blanket.

Good thing Jeff Graham went back 2 months later to dust the MH when he saw they had not even dusted the horizontal cabinet over the "deathbed"...not sure why they only took 6 latents in February but Jeff was able to go back and get 22....neither time did they dust the cab area of the MH.

[nina0113]

I don't even think adult pornography is "OK", but it's my understanding that none of the pornography found involved prepubescent children.

Which, again, doesn't make it OK, but every time I've seen a child molestor busted (only on TV) they've had to bring boxes to haul all the child-raping porn away. No matter how computer-literate the molestors are, they always seem to have to have dead-tree copies as well. If Westerfield had nothing on dead-tree, it casts some doubt, for me at least, on the provenance of all the electronic porn.

I've cleaned too much porn off the computers of people who I KNOW did not download it deliberately to be certain of his guilt on that front.

I know the prosecution/defense can't wrap up every little loose thread & tie it in a neat bow just for me, but I'd like a few more than we've had. I hope he is really guilty, because the thought of an innocent man being destroyed by this is almost as unbearable as what Danielle must have suffered. I believe some of the legal eagles on the forum have said he can take the stand in the penalty phase next week. If he truly is innocent, he'd better. I would have risked it at trial myself.

[FreeTheHostages]

If he truly is innocent, he'd better. I would have risked it at trial myself.

I guess you can gather from my comments hereto that my firm belief is that he won't testify.

You mention your belief that if he had child pornography once, he would have to have had it before. Due to the internet, there has been in this country an *explosion* of adult consumption of child pornography. That means, perforce, new customers coming in via the internet. You mention "boxes" of stuff being taken out. That's typical but that's not the only way. You have to reason that the reason there are members-only child porno cites that people frequent is so that they can view it on the internet and take less criminal risk by downloading (which, I believe, is a new and separate crime, the downloading).

But there's no such thing as the perfect criminal who does the typical thing. Whoever did this crime, and Danielle is dead and someone did, was an erratic monster to begin with. Criminal behavior occurs in chaotic pattern in dynamic circumstances. So the fact that a particular criminal isn't typical doesn't instill doubt in my heart. Satan has some curious ways, and we are all fallen.

[nina0113]

I guess you can gather from my comments hereto that my firm belief is that he won't testify.

If he doesn't, then I'll be over on the GUILTY! side of the room. My husband thinks the reason he didn't testify at the trial was that all he could testify to would be a drunken blackout. Again, I would have risked it myself, just to be able to shout my innocence to the world. God would know & I would know, & if the world didn't know, it wouldn't be because I hadn't told them - it would be because they didn't believe me.

If he doesn't scream his innocence at the top of his lungs at the penalty phase, then he's not. The trial is OVER, & so is his life, either by needle or by fellow prisoner. There's nothing left to lose.

[FreeTheHostages]

I know the prosecution/defense can't wrap up every little loose thread & tie it in a neat bow just for me, but I'd like a few more than we've had.

Without, I hope, even a hint of sarcasm, let me say that this a *deeply* insightful comment. I think the doubts of some here are based upon a sincere wish for more when the State does the ultimate and deprives a citizen of their birthright of freedom of person. Of course, in every case as a prosecutor, I wished I had more too: no matter how much, why not have more. The police usually wished for this too (although some were lazy and didn't care).

I think of this in religious terms, actually. We're talking about Justice on Earth here. We're talking about proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We're not talking about all doubt because we can't: we're only humans here on the planet Earth. Judgment beyond all doubt is not within our powers. All we can do is thrive as best we can in this fallen garden, which is under bad management, until we hopefully arrive at a place of perfect judgment.

The Bible says one should love the instinct to strive for justice. God is a just, the Bible says, and that means not only merciful but, when appropriate, wrathful. We are taught to love the truth and to love justice. And yet we can never, about anything at all, really know the truth. Who can know the truth of what was in Westerfield's drunken heart as he did this?

It's really a wonderful instinct, to truly want to know more and to want to be absolutely certain. I applaud it. But I don't think that on Earth we can be absolutely certain. And without law and order, we cannot have peace and welfare for our families. So the standard must be beyond a reasonable doubt. For justice-loving peoples, there's always some sincere regret that it has to be so, that we just aren't as humans capable of reaching that higher standard at this time and in this place.

Criminal defense attorneys will sometimes say at trial: Judge not lest you be judged! I would point out in response, as the prosecutor, that that passage refers to the ultimate moral judgment and what we're doing here is secular, human judgment in the criminal law. These are, while we are on Earth, two different things. Sigh: were that it was otherwise.

I believe God approves of people who think about these things you reflect upon. We should love justice and we should strive for as perfect a justice as we can -- with the cards that we are dealt.

[ACross]

Are you familiar with appellate practice? No evidence not in the record from the trial can be considered. So, nothing will "come out" on appeal. Evidence not admitted may be argued as points of error, but we would all know about them from offers of proof.

Nice juror you would be--- deciding a case based on whether someone's facial expressions indicated they were guilty, rather than facts such as bloodstains in mobile homes.

[Diamond]

Ask me and I'll tell you that the parents have suffered more than westerfield ever will. I hope they'll be able to smoke some pot to dampen their pain.

There isn't enough pot in the world to ease the pain of having one's young child die, much less the way this poor child did. And there isn't enough pot in the world to take away the torment of consciences seared by the evils they have inflicted upon themselves, each other, and others.

Cordially,

[Illbay]

They'll be listening to the White Album, looking for clues to his innocence.

LOL! Backwards, of course!

Me, I spent this morning listening to The Smiths' "Half-Baked Conspiracy Theory In A Coma".

[Freedom2specul8]

"But I would hope on the subject of child pornography, FR would be a place where that's not minimized or excused"

It's not minimized or excused, it's denied and the jurors are not being given credit for knowing child porn when they see it.

[Illbay]

If we thought he WAS a monster, we wouldn't be defending him.

Sorry, that just doesn't convince.

You ignore plain, simple evidence--or marginalize it--terms like "spot of blood," "a couple of minutes of kiddie porn video," etc.--and instead opt for open-ended questions you try to portray as closed-ended ("How could he carry the body?" "How about the bugs?" etc.)

NOW you want to ignore that TWELVE INDIVIDUALS with no stake in the case, and what's more, with COMPLETE ACCESS to ALL the information, including information you haven't seen and NEVER will see, looked at all of it and UNANIMOUSLY concluded that he is guilty.

Now, consider this: If they put him to death, that tells you how ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED they were.

From there, you can only retreat into still more conspiracy theories involving paid-off jurors, etc.

You will ignore the fact that there is no REASON for any such shenanigans other than to gall and frustrate people like you.

I won't even go into the implications for monomania on your part that this brings up!